Supreme Court ruling changes how the courts view asbestos claims

A new ruling in the Supreme Court regarding liability and exposure to asbestos should make it easier for victims to identify who is liable and gain some form of compensation. Below is a summary of what was decided during proceedings.

The Supreme Court decided last week to change how courts will view asbestos related disease claims. It has been difficult for victims to claim compensation in the past unless they could prove all of the following:-

- They were owed a Duty of Care by another party.
- That Duty of Care was breached.
- The breach was wholly responsible for the claimant catching the disease.

That meant that anyone who had contracted Mesathelioma had to prove exactly when they were exposed to asbestos, and if exposure had been over a long period with different employers it was difficult to pinpoint who was responsible for the exposure.

The new ruling has changed how the courts will view claims in as much as they now say that if the employer had increased the risk of exposure to double then that employer can be deemed to have caused the exposure, making it easier to persue claims.

The ruling particularly refers to the school caretaker who never worked directly with asbestos but was exposed by repeated entry into a boiler house where asbestos fibres were in the air. The court decided that by failing to manage the boiler house situation the school had increased the risk of exposure to double of that which could be expected, and as such the caretaker must have been exposed at the school, and, therefore, the claim should be met by the school insurers.

Source: Industry Today (image via treehugger)